Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Victoria Cross
Victoria Cross
edit| Main page | Articles |
| Victoria Cross | Victoria Cross for Australia - Victoria Cross (Canada) - Victoria Cross for New Zealand |
Two articles are FA. 2 are Good Articles. As they are short and at the moment some images cannot be free use due to no medals existing, I think it is ready to become a Featured Topic. Woodym555 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)(amended Woodym555 11:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
Comment Are there any specific reasons that the Australia and New Zealand articles are called Victoria Cross FOR XX while the Canada article is called Victoria Cross (CANADA)? It seems a bit odd. --Peter Andersen 21:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I personally found it odd and a discussion was held on Xdamr's talk page about proper naming conventions. Sources seem to differ. Unless the official warrant can be found or someone wins the award then the name will not become clear. At the moment his book is the best source that we have although the NZ press release would seem to contradict it. Woodym555 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. There should be at least two FAs per "several articles are of featured class" in WP:FT?.--Pharos 05:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Question "Items that cannot achieve a high rating due to their limited subject matter have passed an individual audit for quality." Does GA qualify or should these be put up for A class review with the Milhist project. If so i will withdraw the nomination until these are complete. Woodym555 12:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- The idea behind "items that cannot achieve a high rating due to their limited subject matter" is generally a pretty strict one. So far the only one we've agreed to is List of Nunavut general elections, which is limited on a very fundamental level because there have only been two elections since that territory was created. The articles you're talking about don't seem to be comparable.
- But that's a totally different issue. That's only for articles that can't achieve GA or FA, and your non-FA articles are already all GA, so you're good on that point. But you really should have at least two FAs in total (see above), so I would suggest toward improving your most developed GA article further, possibly with the help of your WikiProject.--Pharos 02:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- can i Withdraw this or put it on hold until i go through the FA process with a couple of the articles, thanks. Woodym555 12:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Debate ON HOLDpending FA debates. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - After a month and a half, it passed! Hurray! Judgesurreal777 22:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I know i am the original nominator, and i have been waiting quite a long time, but you might want to hold on until the Good article review of Victoria Cross (Canada) has been closed. That should be anytime now as no-one objects but still. I want everything to go through properly!! Woodym555 23:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nom is back on. The GA review has just been closed and Victoria Cross (canada) is now a GA.
- I know i am the original nominator, and i have been waiting quite a long time, but you might want to hold on until the Good article review of Victoria Cross (Canada) has been closed. That should be anytime now as no-one objects but still. I want everything to go through properly!! Woodym555 23:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support, all requirements now met. --PresN 16:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- All major objections soom to have been addressed. As far as I can tell it meets requirements, and has been here more than long enough, so I will give it its fourth support and promote it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)